linux-kernel - Re: stalling IO regression since linux 5.12, through 5.18

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAFj5m9JGGMOc1k71KbiHWu07Vh5FucOtR_yU35eDAfX_2GL0TQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 18 Aug 2022 23:10:13 +0800
From:   Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>
To:     Chris Murphy <lists@...orremedies.com>
Cc:     Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@...e.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@...aro.org>,
        Btrfs BTRFS <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux-RAID <linux-raid@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-block <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>
Subject: Re: stalling IO regression since linux 5.12, through 5.18

On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 9:50 PM Chris Murphy <lists@...orremedies.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2022, at 1:24 AM, Ming Lei wrote:
>
> >
> > Also please test the following one too:
> >
> >
> > diff --git a/block/blk-mq.c b/block/blk-mq.c
> > index 5ee62b95f3e5..d01c64be08e2 100644
> > --- a/block/blk-mq.c
> > +++ b/block/blk-mq.c
> > @@ -1991,7 +1991,8 @@ bool blk_mq_dispatch_rq_list(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx
> > *hctx, struct list_head *list,
> >               if (!needs_restart ||
> >                   (no_tag && list_empty_careful(&hctx->dispatch_wait.entry)))
> >                       blk_mq_run_hw_queue(hctx, true);
> > -             else if (needs_restart && needs_resource)
> > +             else if (needs_restart && (needs_resource ||
> > +                                     blk_mq_is_shared_tags(hctx->flags)))
> >                       blk_mq_delay_run_hw_queue(hctx, BLK_MQ_RESOURCE_DELAY);
> >
> >               blk_mq_update_dispatch_busy(hctx, true);
> >
>
> Should I test both patches at the same time, or separately? On top of v5.17 clean, or with b6e68ee82585 still reverted?

Please test it separately against v5.17.

thanks,